Resources

Objections To Creation & Why They Are Flawed

The oscillating universe model was
advanced by the astronomers who disliked the idea the Big Bang was the beginning
of the universe. In this model, it is claimed that the present expansion of the
universe will eventually be reversed at some point and begin to contract. This
contraction will cause everything to collapse into a single point that will then
explode again, initiating a new round of expansion. This process, they say, is
repeated infinitely in time. This model also holds that the universe has
experienced this transformation an infinite number of times already and that it
will continue to do so forever. In other words, the universe exists for eternity
but it expands and collapses at different intervals with a huge explosion
punctuating each cycle. The universe we live in is just one of those infinite
universes going through the same cycle.

This is nothing but a feeble attempt to accommodate the fact of
the Big Bang to notions about an infinite universe. The proposed scenario is
unsupported by the results of scientific research over the last 15-20 years,
which show that it is impossible for such an "oscillating" universe idea to come
into being. Furthermore the laws of physics offer no reason why a contracting
universe should explode again after collapsing into a single point: it ought to
stay just as it is. Nor do they offer a reason why an expanding universe should
ever begin to contract in the first place. 1

Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this
cycle of contraction- explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is
that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed. Calculations for this
model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy to its
successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less
each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger
diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around
and so on, eventually petering out into nothing. Even if "open and close"
universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes
necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing". 2

The "quantum model of universe" is another attempt to purge the
Big Bang of its creationist implications. Supporters of this model base it on
the observations of quantum (subatomic) physics. In quantum physics, it is to be
observed that subatomic particles appear and disappear spontaneously in a
vacuum. Interpreting this observation as "matter can originate at quantum level,
this is a property pertaining to matter", some physicists try to explain the
origination of matter from non-existence during the creation of the universe as
a "property pertaining to matter" and present it as a part of laws of nature. In
this model, our universe is interpreted as a subatomic particle in a bigger one.

However this syllogism is definitely out of question and in any
case cannot explain how the universe came into being. Lane Craig, the author of
The Big Bang: Theism and Atheism explains why:

A quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material
particles is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather,
a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles,
which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not
"nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of
nothing. 3

So in quantum physics, matter "does not exist when it was not
before". What happens is that ambient energy suddenly becomes matter and just as
suddenly disappears becoming energy again. In short, there is no condition of
"existence from nothingness" as is claimed.

In physics, no less than in other branches of the sciences,
there are atheist scientists who do not hesitate to disguise the truth by
overlooking critical points and details in their attempt to support the
materialist view and achieve their ends. For them, it is much more important to
defend materialism and atheism than to reveal scientific facts and
realities.

In the face of the reality mentioned above, most scientists
dismiss the quantum universe model. C. J. Isham explains that "this model is not
accepted widely because of the inherent difficulties that it poses." 4
Even some of the originators of this idea, such as Brout and Spindel, have
abandoned it. 5

A recent and much-publicized version of
the quantum universe model was advanced by the physicist Stephen Hawking. In his
book A Brief History of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't
necessarily mean existence from nothingness. Instead of "no time" before the Big
Bang, Hawking proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According to Hawking,
there was only a 10 -43 second "imaginary" time interval before the Big Bang
took place and "real" time was formed after that. Hawking's hope was just to
ignore the reality of "timelessness" before the Big Bang by means of this
"imaginary" time.

As a concept, "imaginary time" is tantamount to zero or
non-existence-like the imaginary number of people in a room or the imaginary
number of cars on a road. Here Hawking is just playing with words. He claims
that equations are right when they are related to an imaginary time but in fact
this has no meaning. The mathematician Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the
possibility of faking imaginary things as real in math as:

In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as
truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of
telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by
reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the
mathematical solution and its physical correlate. 6

To put it briefly, a mathematically
imaginary or theoretical solution need not have a true or a real consequence.
Using a property exclusive to mathematics, Hawking produces hypotheses that are
unrelated to reality. But what reason could he have for doing this? It's easy to
find the answer to that question in his own words. Hawking admits that he
prefers alternative universe models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints at
divine creation", which such models are designed to oppose. 7

What all this shows is that alternative models to the Big Bang
such as steady-state, the open and close universe model, and quantum universe
models in fact spring from the philosophical prejudices of materialists.
Scientific discoveries have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang and can
even explain "existence from nothingness". And this is very strong evidence that
the universe is created by God, a point that materialists utterly reject.

An example of this opposition to the Big Bang is to be found in
an essay by John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist magazine), that
appeared in 1989. In "Down with the Big Bang", Maddox declares the Big Bang to
be philosophically unacceptable because it helps theologists by providing them
with strong support for their ideas. The author also predicted that the Big Bang
would be disproved and that support for it would disappear within a decade. 8
Maddox can only have been even more discomforted by the subsequent
discoveries during the next ten years that have provided further evidence of the
existence of the Big Bang.

Some materialists do act with more common sense on this subject.
The British Materialist H. P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit
"unpleasantly", when he says:

If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms,
natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?…I think, however,
that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that
this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. 9

In conclusion, the truth disclosed by science is this:

Matter andtime have been brought into being by
an independent possessor of immense power, by a Creator. God, the Possessor of
almighty power, knowledge and intelligence, has created the universe we live
in.

Article courtesy of
www.DesignandUniverse.com

[Quran
36:7]It has
been predetermined that most of them do not believe.

[Quran 36:8] For we
place around their necks shackles, up to their chins. Consequently, they become locked in their disbelief.

[Quran 36:9] And we
place a barrier in front of them, and a barrier behind them, and thus, we veil
them; they cannot see.

[Quran 36:10] It is
the same whether you warn them or not, they cannot believe.*

[Quran 45:22] GOD
created the heavens and the earth for a specific purpose, in order to pay each
soul for whatever it earned, without the least injustice.*

[Quran 45:23] Have
you noted the one whose god is his ego? Consequently, GOD sends him astray,
despite his knowledge, seals his hearing and his mind, and places a veil on his
eyes. Who then can guide him, after such a decision by GOD? Would you not take
heed?